SPAM is THEFT!
Do you want your 5 year old daughter asking, "Daddy, can you buy me some penis enlargement pills?"
September 1, 2012:Sued a multilevel marketing scam (Alivemax and Stiforp) and NameCheap for illegal spam. Current Status.
December 12, 2011:I recently settled a case against a web site that operates an affiliate program. My analysis of the Defendants' business and discussions with Defendants and their counsel has given me a chance to think about liabilities and practices in affiliate programs. These defendants learned that ignoring spam problems in their affiliate program not only cost them money in judgments and settlements, but cost them over one million dollars in attorney fees.
These defendants learned that using multiple offshore corporations and moving money around does insulate one from liability for spamming.
A lesson is to promptly and harshly deal with affiliates who spam. Publically identify them, make it easy to track the offending affiliates. In affiliate agreements, put a delay in payment and so when the affiliate is identified, their money can be withheld. Throw the affiliate under the bus.
January 18, 2011, the California Appeals Court in Hypertouch v. Valueclick found that Cal. Business & Professions Code is Not Preempted and that the business advertised by the spam is strictly liable.
November 5, 2010: Robert Smoley pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute schedule III and IV controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) in connection with his online pharmacy business promoted by spamming.
February 19, 2008: Joseph Kish and Synergy Law Group threatens me for using an e-mail address that contains some of their firm's name in it. Since this e-mail addresses is being used exclusively for my communications with them, maybe Kish is saying that their employees think I am the firm, hmmmmm. I wonder if someone has registered synergylawsucks.com?
February 19, 2008: I filed an anti-SLAPP motion to e360's counterclaim, pro se. The Court rejected this motion, refusing to permit me to represent myself in the Counterclaim.
January 29, 2008: e360Insight and Bargain filed their SLAPP counterclaim.
November 1, 2007: Sexsearch.com is a scam! Sexsearch is a perfect example of what I have been saying., spammers lie, and people who spammers lie. It seems as though Sexsearch is a scam in its entirety -- a shadow entity, with fake profiles, and programmed to cheat its affiliates. Sexsearch.com not only puts up fake profiles, skims from their affiliates. Ed Kunkle, the COO of Sexsearch, claimed he found his fiancé/wife/girlfriend on Sexsearch. One ex-employee stated, in the context Sexsearch being sued for providing a 15 y/o girl for sex (and the case also talked about Sexsearch providing pornography to the same girl), that he was shocked that anyone could contact a real woman through Sexsearch -- given the amount of fake female profiles -- implying that there are no real women members on the web site. Maybe this picture is Ed Kunkle's fiancé/wife/girlfriend -- or was Ed lying?
August 30, 2007: E360Insight and Linhardt dropped their Linhardt dropped their SLAPP suit against me and NANAE for calling him a spammer. At the hearing on two motions to dismiss and a motion to change venue, Linhardt dismissed the suit. Linhardt ran with his tail between his legs instead of having a judge rule. This is the second time he filed the same lawsuit lawsuit against the newsgroup participants. It seems as though e360Insight Linhardt will file lawsuits against people, and if the defendants actually fight the case, Linhardt will dismiss the case.
May 14, 2007: E360Insight and Linhardt sued me for calling him a spammer. He dropped the prior lawsuit against the newsgroup participants, and added me. He filed this in Illinois State Court. Linhardt knew not to bring his SLAPP suit in California because he would be paying fees and costs in response to an anti-SLAPP motion.
March 16, 2007: I filed a lawsuit against E360Insight and David Linhardt for sending illegal spam. For those who don't know, he received a $11.7M judgment against Spamhaus -- for calling him and his business a spammer. Early this month, they (E360Iinsight and Linhardt) filed a lawsuit against individual newsgroup participants -- for calling Linhardt and E360Insight a spammer. E360's lawsuits are definitely SLAPP actions. I filed my lawsuit against them to prevent them from bring lawsuits against others that exposes their spam operations. Once the Court rules in my case that E360Insight and Linhardt are illegal spammers, they cannot dispute this in any other court.
February 5, 2007: Clyde DeWitt, attorney for TJ Web, attempts to bully and bluff another spam victim, Dan Balsam. When Balsam wrote to one of DeWitt's client, he tells Dan Balsam that the California anti-SPAM statute is preempted by the CAN-SPAM law. He, again, falsely claims that the issue of CAN-SPAM preemption of California law has not been judicially confirmed. That is a LIE! He lost this issue against me on January 5, 2007. Clyde DeWitt also threatens an anti-slapp motion against Dan Balsam. It appears as though DeWitt and his clients believes that foisting pornographic e-emails unwitting recipients, including children, is a constitutional right. Maybe he didn't lie, but he just forgot in my opposition to his motion on the same issue, I cited two cases that ruled that CAN-SPAM did not preempt § 17529.5 Infinite Monkeys & Co. LLC v. Global Resource Systems, et al. Santa Clara Superior Court 1-05-CV039918 (2005) and Timothy J. Walton v. Plasmanet, Inc et. al. Santa Clara Superior Court 1-04-CV033020 (2006).
February 2, 2007: Judgment entered against Robert Smoley, Darin Grey, World Wide Web Enterprises LC, Icom Group LLC, and Priority Response Group International. Last year, they entered into a settlement with me, but then Smoley bounced a check and then failed to pay the remainder of the settlement.
August 25, 2006 - T.J. Web Productions, LLC's motion to quash is denied. The Court found that there web site is sufficiently interactive to confer jurisdiction in California. It would seem now that anyone in California who received spam advertising T.J. Web Production's web sites can file suit in California.
January 12, 2004: Another win for Silverstein. Court rules against Avtech. Total of $70,000 in judgments against Avtech Direct.
Though the I-CAN-SPAM act passed and our e-mailboxes have exploded. We can still fight!
There is still hope. The I-CAN-SPAM act does not preempt state laws that go towards fraud or deceptive information in the e-mail. California recently passed a clarification of the California Spam law. California Senator Kevin Murray gives a further clarification of the legislative intent of the law.
On April 19, 2004 the FTC imposed a labeling requirement of:
"SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT:" in capital letters as the first nineteen (19) characters at the beginning of the subject line."
This labeling requirement becomes effect on May 19, 2004.
Under the California law, not including the required labeling makes the subject line deceptive per se -- violating California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5 which permits the recipient or the ISP to to sue for $1,000 per e-mail.
If you have a state law that allows you to file a lawsuit against a spammer, then use it. One lawsuit against a spammer may not slow them down, but 20, 30, or 40 people filing lawsuits against spammers may make them consider leaving the spamming business.
August 15, 2003: Judgment entered against Mosaic Data Solutions.
June 16, 2003: I was quoted in Time Magazine. Both I and Dan said, "I'm trying to raise the cost of spammers doing business."
Some people may think that spam is a minor annoyance -- until they receive over 100 spams a day offering sex, penis enlargement pills, breast enhancement cream, get rich quick schemes, multi-level marketing schemes, or a chance to get $42 million dollars from deposed Nigerian royalty, and all you have to give them is your bank account number.
Advertising is legal, but has a limited amount of protection under the first amendment. Nothing in the constitution requires one to be forced to listen to free speech or be forced to pay for another's free speech.
Courts have ruled that restricting advertising is constitutional. Courts in many states ruled that state's spam laws are constitutional.
If a company spams or a company hires spammers,
Spam is not a valid means of doing business. By doing business with a spammer, you encourage them to spam more. A company that hires a spammer IS a spammer. When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
If you buy from a company that spams, you encourage them to spam more.
Shop Amazon's Outlet Deals in Computers, Office & Software Computers,
Another William Silverstein
site. Copyright ©2002-2013 William Silverstein. All rights
This site is copyrighted material and its use is subject to non-exclusive license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license, leave this site immediately, or you are bound by the terms of the license. Your use of this site signifies your agreement to be bound by the terms of this license. The use of this site is free for personal and non-commercial use - particularly for those wish to learn about and protect the rights of employees and those who oppose their abuse by employers and large corporations, but there are significant fees charged for certain other uses.
This page are the opinions of William Silverstein based on facts and information provided to him. This is not to be construed as legal advice. Mattel is the manufacturer of Barbie, Matchbox, and Hot Wheels. This site is neither approved nor endorsed by Mattel. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.